This site accuses me of being a "9/11 Truther," which is a bit like saying that Winston Churchill was a big fan of Adolf Hitler.
I've spent countless hours writing posts and comments debunking the claims of controlled demolition. In the left hand column, I link to many sites which detail the scientific flaws of the "tranny" arguments. In the right hand column, I have placed a large and colorful ad -- of my own devising, and offered free of charge -- linking to a site which offers an excellent refutation of those absurd claims. The CDers despise me.
And yet twice now, fools on pro-Obama sites have classified me as a CD proponent. Is there something about Obama-worship which injures the ability to read the English language? (Oh...and just in case some revisionist wants to try to convince me that Churchill really was a big Adolf fan: Please peddle that malarky elsewhere.)
Friday, June 06, 2008
Thursday, June 05, 2008
Obama also said that he barely knew Tony Rezko. PLUS: Cynthia McKinney, Farrakhan, Moon and Malcolm X
Someone has finally asked Obama about the Michelle-says-"whitey" video. His response:
I would prefer to hear Michelle state whether or not she has ever used a racial insult to describe white people. That question, yes or no. Never mind whether or not a tape exists, just answer that question.
If they made Bill Clinton give agonizing specifics on the far-less-important issue of did-you-have-sex-with-that-woman, then fair, sayeth I, is fair.
Cynthia McKinney: So now that Obama is taking over the Democratic Party, where do the non-Kossacks go? Should I become a man of Cyn, as I have often suggested?
I was all ready to embrace McKinney. Her bold stance on impeachment shamed everyone else in Congress.
But then I read that she, too, has received aid from Louis Farrakhan. Are there no Farrakhan-free black politicians anywhere in this country?
Here's where things get terribly strange. A group called COPA -- Committee On Political Assassinations -- has asked me to push an upcoming conference in L.A. If you go to their site, here, you'll see pictures of JFK, RFK, MLK -- and Malcolm X.
If you dig deeper into the site, you'll see that one of the speakers in L.A. for the Malcolm X panel is none other than Cynthia McKinney. She's listed as an "expert on COINTELPRO and civil rights movement."
Now go here to see an interview with Farrakhan. He discusses his strong support for Cynthia McKinney. Also see here:
Before Malcolm X's murder, Farrakhan had pronounced his better to be worthy of death. In 1993, Farrakhan said:
(By the way: Last time I took the pooch for a midnight stroll on the grounds of UC Riverside, I couldn't help but wonder: Who ordered the attempted hit on Khalid Abdul Muhammad, which occurred on that campus?)
Malcolm X's daughter, Qubilah Shabazz, was charged with plotting revenge against Farrakhan. Farrakhan paid for her defense -- the price being a joint "reconciliation" meeting between himself and Betty Shabazz at the Apollo Theater. A mother will do what she must to help a child in trouble. Malcolm's widow must have gritted her teeth until they were ready to crack as Farrakhan spoke:
In Spike Lee's biopic -- which is a superb film, until the compromised final act -- Malcolm X splits from the NOI after learning of Elijah Muhammed's sexual dalliances. In real life, Malcolm became infuriated with the NOI's alliance with neo-Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell. More than that: Malcolm segued from the reactionary, segregationist politics of the NOI and became converted to a progressive, left-wing political perspective. (Truly progressive, that is -- as opposed to the disguised libertarianism which masquerades as "progressivism" these days).
I've seen no evidence that the NOI -- then or now -- ever acted against the forces of fascism. Quite the opposite. Elijah Muhammed forbade his followers from participating in unions, he formed an alliance with the Bund, and he did everything he could to stop Malcolm from joining prominent leftists throughout the world.
Who are Farrakhan's allies? Well, we now know all about Pfleger and Wright. But the NOI leader's most important links go to one of the most prominent backers of modern day fascism, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. As we have discussed in these pages many times, Moon also has close ties to "Poppy" and Neil Bush, not to mention fundamentalists Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye. Money buys interesting friends.
See here:
Some may accuse me of being a racist because I won't vote for either black candidate in November, even though I voted for black presidential candidates in 1988 and 2008. There's one black person in particular for whom I would have been overjoyed to vote -- had he lived beyond the year 1965, and had he run for public office after I came of age. His name was Malcolm.
We have seen this before. There is dirt and lies that are circulated in emails and they pump them out long enough until finally you, a mainstream reporter, asks me about it,” Obama said to the McClatchy reporter during a press conference aboard his campaign plane. “That gives legs to the story. If somebody has evidence that myself or Michelle or anybody has said something inappropriate, let them do it.”Actually, he had not.
Asked whether he knew it not to be true, Obama said he had answered the question.
I would prefer to hear Michelle state whether or not she has ever used a racial insult to describe white people. That question, yes or no. Never mind whether or not a tape exists, just answer that question.
If they made Bill Clinton give agonizing specifics on the far-less-important issue of did-you-have-sex-with-that-woman, then fair, sayeth I, is fair.
Cynthia McKinney: So now that Obama is taking over the Democratic Party, where do the non-Kossacks go? Should I become a man of Cyn, as I have often suggested?
I was all ready to embrace McKinney. Her bold stance on impeachment shamed everyone else in Congress.But then I read that she, too, has received aid from Louis Farrakhan. Are there no Farrakhan-free black politicians anywhere in this country?
Here's where things get terribly strange. A group called COPA -- Committee On Political Assassinations -- has asked me to push an upcoming conference in L.A. If you go to their site, here, you'll see pictures of JFK, RFK, MLK -- and Malcolm X.
If you dig deeper into the site, you'll see that one of the speakers in L.A. for the Malcolm X panel is none other than Cynthia McKinney. She's listed as an "expert on COINTELPRO and civil rights movement."Now go here to see an interview with Farrakhan. He discusses his strong support for Cynthia McKinney. Also see here:
"She [Cynthia McKinney] was the only member of the Georgia delegation to vote against the resolution condemning an anti-Semitic speech by Khalid Abdul Muhammad, an aide to Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan." Source: The Atlanta Journal and Constitution, September 13, 1994Now go here for an article about Malcolm X's widow, Betty Shabazz:
In 1994, Shabazz spoke publicly about the long-held suspicion that Louis Farrakhan, the current leader of the Nation of Islam, had been behind the assassination of her husband.
Before Malcolm X's murder, Farrakhan had pronounced his better to be worthy of death. In 1993, Farrakhan said:"Was Malcolm your traitor or ours? And if we dealt with [Malcolm] like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of yours? A nation has to be able to deal with traitors and cutthroats and turncoats."Most people will consider those words a confession. Of course, fanatics can rationalize away pretty much any piece of evidence, however plain to common sense.
(By the way: Last time I took the pooch for a midnight stroll on the grounds of UC Riverside, I couldn't help but wonder: Who ordered the attempted hit on Khalid Abdul Muhammad, which occurred on that campus?)
Malcolm X's daughter, Qubilah Shabazz, was charged with plotting revenge against Farrakhan. Farrakhan paid for her defense -- the price being a joint "reconciliation" meeting between himself and Betty Shabazz at the Apollo Theater. A mother will do what she must to help a child in trouble. Malcolm's widow must have gritted her teeth until they were ready to crack as Farrakhan spoke:
"Members of the Nation of Islam were involved in the assassination of Malcolm," Farrakhan publicly acknowledged for the first time. "The Nation has taken the heat and carried the burden of the murder of Malcolm X. We can't deny whatever our part was."As always with both conspiracy theorists and conspiracy perpetrators (the two are often one and the same), the culprit must always be The Eternal Other -- never oneself. One left-wing journal offered this response:
Farrakhan then pointed to the government's role in Malcolm X's assassination, saying, "We must not let the real culprit get away with hiding their hands. It was manipulation and stimulation of our own pettiness and weakness by outside forces. The government of America is that outside force.
"The government by its own admission had agents on both sides to manipulate the zeal and ignorance inside the ranks of the Nation of Islam and among the followers of Brother Malcolm X to create the atmosphere that allowed him to be assassinated," he said.
Farrakhan’s efforts to put in the past and minimize the responsibility of the Nation of Islam in the assassination of Malcolm X should be rejected by all supporters of the fight for Black liberation and the struggle for social justice and equality.This piece by Earl Ofari Hutchinson offers what I consider a sound assessment of the government's role in the events leading up to the assassination. Yes, there was a disgusting degree of government surveillance and harassment -- but Hutchinson does not use these outrages as a catch-all excuse for the actions of Farrakhan's NOI.
In Spike Lee's biopic -- which is a superb film, until the compromised final act -- Malcolm X splits from the NOI after learning of Elijah Muhammed's sexual dalliances. In real life, Malcolm became infuriated with the NOI's alliance with neo-Nazi George Lincoln Rockwell. More than that: Malcolm segued from the reactionary, segregationist politics of the NOI and became converted to a progressive, left-wing political perspective. (Truly progressive, that is -- as opposed to the disguised libertarianism which masquerades as "progressivism" these days).
I've seen no evidence that the NOI -- then or now -- ever acted against the forces of fascism. Quite the opposite. Elijah Muhammed forbade his followers from participating in unions, he formed an alliance with the Bund, and he did everything he could to stop Malcolm from joining prominent leftists throughout the world.
Who are Farrakhan's allies? Well, we now know all about Pfleger and Wright. But the NOI leader's most important links go to one of the most prominent backers of modern day fascism, the Reverend Sun Myung Moon. As we have discussed in these pages many times, Moon also has close ties to "Poppy" and Neil Bush, not to mention fundamentalists Jerry Falwell and Tim LaHaye. Money buys interesting friends.See here:
Frederick Clarkson reported in Salon that Rev. Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church played a key role in supporting the Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan's Million Family March in Washington D.C. "Moon's role in the Million Family March is the fruit of a three-year personal relationship that began when Farrakhan helped officiate at one of Moon's marriage ceremonies at Washington's RFK Stadium in 1997," he wrote.And here:
Members of both movements are puzzled by the alliance. The Rev. Levy Daughtery, a prominent Moon ally, this week explained that "every prophet starts his ministry ... among his own people and race." Now, he says, those who attend the march "are the new chosen people."When Cynthia McKinney speaks in Los Angeles on the death of Malcolm X, will she discuss the possible role of Louis Farrakhan? Or will she point at the CIA, at the FBI, at Mossad, at the mafia, at the insidious Dr. Yacub, at the UFO people, at anyone and anything other than the obvious way to point?
Farrakhan, too, sought to calm his followers: "I am grateful for the help of ... Reverend and Mrs. Moon, and I don't want us to get bent out of shape because a folk of another race desires to help make the Million Family March successful."
Some may accuse me of being a racist because I won't vote for either black candidate in November, even though I voted for black presidential candidates in 1988 and 2008. There's one black person in particular for whom I would have been overjoyed to vote -- had he lived beyond the year 1965, and had he run for public office after I came of age. His name was Malcolm.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
THAT video: Reply from ABC News
As many of you know, I've been trying to track down the fabled video in which Michelle Obama allegedly rails against "whitey."
The story began with Larry Johnson of No Quarter, who heard about the existence of such a video from five sources, all Republicans. The sources said that the video showed Michelle with Louis Farrakhan, and that Karl Rove was holding it in reserve for just the right moment.
From there, the story was picked up by Republican operative Roger Stone and pro-Obama FOX broadcaster Bob Beckel. Both claimed to have heard about the tape from their own sources, which may or may not be the same as Johnson's. Stone said that a TV network possessed the tape; soon after he spoke, a rumor spread that the network was ABC.
Last night, a site called HillBuzz supplied a highly detailed account of the tape, which supposedly was made on June 28, 2004, at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago. The occasion was a Women's Luncheon held as part of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference. HillBuzz illustrated its story with an eye-opening photograph of Michelle Obama (then the wife of an aspirant to the U.S. Senate) and the wife of Louis Farrakhan.
Perhaps (I reasoned) Johnson's sources misinterpreted a reference to the wife as a reference to Farrakhan himself.
HillBuzz went on to provide a surprisingly detailed of what Michelle Obama said on that occasion. (More on those details later.) Larry Johnson reprinted the HillBuzz effort approvingly -- although, needless to say, he does not bear responsibility for the words written by others.
It occurred to me that we may not need a video to learn what occurred at a public event. Eyewitness testimony would do nicely. The event was emceed by ABC 7 broadcasters Cheryl Burton and Karen Jordan, and ABC had videotaped the entire luncheon.
Thus, I made it my duty to track down Jordan, Burton, or anyone else who was there.
This task proved difficult -- so much so that I started to get suspicious.
And tired.
When I began this quest, in the early A.M., I was propelled by partisan enthusiasm and the thrill that comes when one feels oneself to be on the verge of a breakthrough. Twelve hours later -- after an epic search for anyone in that room on that date -- I stopped being certain and simply became desperate for a solution. Any solution.
Dining on crow, if it came to that, would be a relief, as long as the mystery found closure.
Finally, a representative of ABC News 7 in Chicago got back to me. Here is the official reply:
While ABC News did cover the entire event, they did not keep the raw footage for very long. The only bits they retained were the brief clips intended for use on the news that night. The clips showed speakers Shoshana Johnson and Jesse Jackson Sr. (I questioned the ABC News representative carefully on this point.)
However, we have no reason to doubt the integrity of Jordan and Burton. We must trust their recollections.
Does that settle that?
Conceivably, Michelle spoke informally after the proceedings had wound down, and after Jordan and Burton had left the room. Such things do happen. Some of my readers will consider this suggestion a stretch, others will not.
Should we conclude that the sources who told Johnson, Stone and Beckel about an inflammatory Michelle Obama video are hoaxing? Not necessarily: Those sources are not responsible for the things written on HillBuzz. Or so I presume...
We must now consider a cognate mystery. Just who is responsible for HillBuzz?
The proprietor of that site divulges neither name nor contact info. He or she will not allow comments. Few other sites, even within the pro-Hillary blogoverse, link to HillBuzz. The site seems to have popped into existence of its own accord.
Consider, once more, the HillBuzz description of Michelle's alleged rant on June 28, 2004:
And yet -- if a tape exists, it almost certainly was not taken at the event described by HillBuzz! So just where did HillBuzz get those references to Africa and black-on-black crime?
Before calling the mysterious proprietor of that site a hoaxer, I would prefer to allow some time to pass. Perhaps an explanation will come.
So, this day began with excitement and ended in perplexity. I'm glad to have tracked down the eyewitnesses -- otherwise, the HillBuzz version of events might have lingered for days or weeks or months. Still, the story did conclude with some magenta in cheek.
Has the entire "Michelle video" story been disproven? Nope.
We're back to where we were on Tuesday morning. She may have spoken intemperately on some previous occasion. One could argue that she was more likely to speak without thinking before her husband ran for the Senate. One could also argue that someone has fibbed to Johnson, Stone and Beckel.
Yes, I'm frustrated and annoyed to have been misled by the HillBuzz report. The level of detail in that report convinced me that this investigative trail would lead somewhere.
A friend assures me that when dining on crow, one should use plenty of barbecue sauce. Less gamy that way.
The story began with Larry Johnson of No Quarter, who heard about the existence of such a video from five sources, all Republicans. The sources said that the video showed Michelle with Louis Farrakhan, and that Karl Rove was holding it in reserve for just the right moment.
From there, the story was picked up by Republican operative Roger Stone and pro-Obama FOX broadcaster Bob Beckel. Both claimed to have heard about the tape from their own sources, which may or may not be the same as Johnson's. Stone said that a TV network possessed the tape; soon after he spoke, a rumor spread that the network was ABC.
Last night, a site called HillBuzz supplied a highly detailed account of the tape, which supposedly was made on June 28, 2004, at the Sheraton Hotel in Chicago. The occasion was a Women's Luncheon held as part of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference. HillBuzz illustrated its story with an eye-opening photograph of Michelle Obama (then the wife of an aspirant to the U.S. Senate) and the wife of Louis Farrakhan.
Perhaps (I reasoned) Johnson's sources misinterpreted a reference to the wife as a reference to Farrakhan himself.
HillBuzz went on to provide a surprisingly detailed of what Michelle Obama said on that occasion. (More on those details later.) Larry Johnson reprinted the HillBuzz effort approvingly -- although, needless to say, he does not bear responsibility for the words written by others.
It occurred to me that we may not need a video to learn what occurred at a public event. Eyewitness testimony would do nicely. The event was emceed by ABC 7 broadcasters Cheryl Burton and Karen Jordan, and ABC had videotaped the entire luncheon.
Thus, I made it my duty to track down Jordan, Burton, or anyone else who was there.
This task proved difficult -- so much so that I started to get suspicious.
And tired.
When I began this quest, in the early A.M., I was propelled by partisan enthusiasm and the thrill that comes when one feels oneself to be on the verge of a breakthrough. Twelve hours later -- after an epic search for anyone in that room on that date -- I stopped being certain and simply became desperate for a solution. Any solution.
Dining on crow, if it came to that, would be a relief, as long as the mystery found closure.
Finally, a representative of ABC News 7 in Chicago got back to me. Here is the official reply:
ABC 7’s Karen Jordan and Cheryl Burton emceed the 2004 Rainbow-Push Women’s Luncheon. Other employees of ABC 7 attended along with hundreds of Chicago area civic, professional and media representatives. No one recalls Michelle Obama speaking at this luncheon and our archived video does not show Michelle Obama.The last bit is much less probative than you might think.
While ABC News did cover the entire event, they did not keep the raw footage for very long. The only bits they retained were the brief clips intended for use on the news that night. The clips showed speakers Shoshana Johnson and Jesse Jackson Sr. (I questioned the ABC News representative carefully on this point.)
However, we have no reason to doubt the integrity of Jordan and Burton. We must trust their recollections.
Does that settle that?
Conceivably, Michelle spoke informally after the proceedings had wound down, and after Jordan and Burton had left the room. Such things do happen. Some of my readers will consider this suggestion a stretch, others will not.
Should we conclude that the sources who told Johnson, Stone and Beckel about an inflammatory Michelle Obama video are hoaxing? Not necessarily: Those sources are not responsible for the things written on HillBuzz. Or so I presume...
We must now consider a cognate mystery. Just who is responsible for HillBuzz?
The proprietor of that site divulges neither name nor contact info. He or she will not allow comments. Few other sites, even within the pro-Hillary blogoverse, link to HillBuzz. The site seems to have popped into existence of its own accord.
Consider, once more, the HillBuzz description of Michelle's alleged rant on June 28, 2004:
For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America.The reference to the Tutsis and Africa has no parallel to any published or broadcast statement made by Johnson, Stone or Beckel. This description is new stuff. And it indicates that the writer has interviewed someone who has actually seen the video tape.
And yet -- if a tape exists, it almost certainly was not taken at the event described by HillBuzz! So just where did HillBuzz get those references to Africa and black-on-black crime?
Before calling the mysterious proprietor of that site a hoaxer, I would prefer to allow some time to pass. Perhaps an explanation will come.
So, this day began with excitement and ended in perplexity. I'm glad to have tracked down the eyewitnesses -- otherwise, the HillBuzz version of events might have lingered for days or weeks or months. Still, the story did conclude with some magenta in cheek.
Has the entire "Michelle video" story been disproven? Nope.
We're back to where we were on Tuesday morning. She may have spoken intemperately on some previous occasion. One could argue that she was more likely to speak without thinking before her husband ran for the Senate. One could also argue that someone has fibbed to Johnson, Stone and Beckel.
Yes, I'm frustrated and annoyed to have been misled by the HillBuzz report. The level of detail in that report convinced me that this investigative trail would lead somewhere.
A friend assures me that when dining on crow, one should use plenty of barbecue sauce. Less gamy that way.
The video
I'll have a statement up about the video soon. It won't be what many of you expect, and it may not be to your liking. But it will be of some importance. I have to double-check a few things first.
THIS WOMAN CAN SOLVE THE MYSTERY -- IMMEDIATELY (UPDATES 1 & 2)
Her name is Karen Jordan, and she is a weekend news anchor for ABC News in Chicago. She co-chaired the Woman's Conference connected with the Rainbow/PUSH event in June of 2004.She was there. She heard Michelle Obama speak. She can confirm whether the woman who would be First Lady used the word "Whitey," or if she said something else intemperate.
As I note in the post below: You do not need video of Abraham Lincoln to know that he said "Four score and seven years ago." Eyewitness testimony from a trustworthy source suffices.
I have tried to contact Ms. Jordan repeatedly. Unfortunately, neither she nor anyone else connected with that event will return my calls. Earlier today, I had foolishly hoped to get her exclusive comments on what happened. But this story is far more important than are my dreams of acquiring a scoop. So: If she won't return my calls, perhaps she will return yours.
If you call this number, you can ask to be patched through to her line: 1(312)750-7777.
UPDATE: When I call the ABC Chicago switchboard now, they tell me to write a letter. I get the feeling they've been swamped with inquiries. If there were nothing to the story -- if Michelle spoke politely on that occasion -- why won't these two eyewitnesses reveal the truth?
ABC News anchors Cheryl Burton and Karen Jordan co-chaired the meeting. It thus stands to reason that ABC News taped the event.
A few days ago, before Hillbuzz had identified a likely specific date, Roger Stone said that "a TV network" possessed the tape. Immediately after he said those words on FOX News, right-wing blogs spread the rumor that the network in question was...(wait for it)...ABC.
UPDATE 2: Cheryl Burton is, or at least was until recently, a member of Trinity United. (Thanks to a reader for providing the link.) However, I am sure that she is a journalist of integrity, and that she is loyal to both the truth and her employer.
The Obama-buster video (Updates 1, 2, 3 & 4)
Looks like it's real. The video comes from a women's luncheon held on June 26, 2004 at Trinity United. (Note: This location is incorrect; see below.) This was part of the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition Conference.
John Kerry aroused some controversy when he spoke at the same conference, crossing a picket line to do so -- the picketers being a small-ish group of local blacks who were angry at Jesse Jackson, of all people.
Bill Clinton also spoke at this conference. Apparently, he aroused Michelle's deepest antipathy. Wouldn't it be fitting if the Obama Hopey-Changey crusade ends the way it began -- in a CDS snitfit?
The video was once offered by Trinity, only to be purged from their list of items for sale. (I've been to their website, and as near as I can tell, they aren't offering any videos right now.) So who might have let the thing loose?
I'd like to suggest one possible source: Jeremiah Wright.
You will recall that Obi tossed his long-time spiritual mentor under the proverbial bus. Gee -- do you think that Wright might, just possibly might, have a vindictive streak? Mmmmm....could be...
After all, who invited Jeremiah Wright to speak at the National Press Club? Clinton supporter Barbara Reynolds. That fact tells me that the Clinton forces have opened up a channel to the good Reverend Emeritus of Trinity United. The enemy of your enemy, as they say. Perhaps, in the future, people will say that "Hell hath no fury like a spiritual mentor scorned."
I'll have all latest. Keep checking...
BY THE WAY: Hillary's popular vote total: 17,785,009. Barry's: 17,479,990. This pdf report tells you how Obama gamed the caucuses and stole the election. Will "Thor" Friedman discuss the issue? Nahhh....
UPDATE: The Women's conference was held at the Sheraton Hotel. The event was co-chaired by a local ABC News anchor. I've put in a call. We may soon have confirmation one way or the other. Keep checking back.
UPDATE 2: Susan at Random Thoughts calls the scandal "Whiteygate." She also notes that the most controversial speaker (at the time, within the black community) was Bill Cosby. Why? This is why:
The Telegraph in the UK seems to take the Whiteygate story seriously. They're owned by Murdoch, who now favors Obama.
UPDATE 4: A commenter at My DD, which has become an Obot site, sneers at the possibility that Michelle could have said anything incendiary. They point to this story, covering the entire Rainbow/PUSH conference. The story does not mention Michelle Obama. However, the piece simply does not deal with the Women's luncheon at all; the writer seems not to have attended that event. At the time, the controversy du jour centered on Bill Cosby's remarks.
Many of you keep repeating the mantra: Show the video! If you think that only a showing of the video will suffice, then you have missed an important point: The conference was attended by others. Do you need a video to prove that Lincoln said "Four score and seven years ago"?
I've left a polite message with a newswoman in attendance, pleading with her to clear the matter up. If she denies that Michelle said such a thing, I will of course publish what she says, even if doing so means a crow-and-hat dinner for yours truly. So far, no response. That fact alone may be telling.
Think about it: If Michelle did not use an incendiary term, then those in attendance (including war hero Shoshana Johnson) would be very quick to clear her name. Right?
But...they have said nothing. The silence is mysterious. Remember the lesson of the Swiftboat debacle: Always respond quickly.
My mind keeps flashing back to the Obama rep with whom I spoke. Before he would comment, he spent a minute talking to his boss, asking for direction on what to say to me. Then I was told that the campaign refuses to address the issue until a video surfaces.
Why?
Why can't Michelle simply state "I have never used the word 'Whitey' to denigrate white people"? After all, this story is being covered around the world. Why the silence?
By the way -- don't presume (as many do) that "lots of people" would have purchased the tape if it was once offered for sale. I can easily see how a video of that sort might have had very few takers -- except, perhaps, for those featured in the video. For most people, even those intensely interested in the African American community, online news coverage would have sufficed. The big news at that confrence was made by Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby -- who would have been on another tape.
Others have tried to debunk the story by pointing out that Michelle was not a "panelist" but a "featured speaker." Cah-MON. Does that distinction strike you as terribly important?
John Kerry aroused some controversy when he spoke at the same conference, crossing a picket line to do so -- the picketers being a small-ish group of local blacks who were angry at Jesse Jackson, of all people.
Bill Clinton also spoke at this conference. Apparently, he aroused Michelle's deepest antipathy. Wouldn't it be fitting if the Obama Hopey-Changey crusade ends the way it began -- in a CDS snitfit?
The video was once offered by Trinity, only to be purged from their list of items for sale. (I've been to their website, and as near as I can tell, they aren't offering any videos right now.) So who might have let the thing loose?
I'd like to suggest one possible source: Jeremiah Wright.
You will recall that Obi tossed his long-time spiritual mentor under the proverbial bus. Gee -- do you think that Wright might, just possibly might, have a vindictive streak? Mmmmm....could be...
After all, who invited Jeremiah Wright to speak at the National Press Club? Clinton supporter Barbara Reynolds. That fact tells me that the Clinton forces have opened up a channel to the good Reverend Emeritus of Trinity United. The enemy of your enemy, as they say. Perhaps, in the future, people will say that "Hell hath no fury like a spiritual mentor scorned."
I'll have all latest. Keep checking...
BY THE WAY: Hillary's popular vote total: 17,785,009. Barry's: 17,479,990. This pdf report tells you how Obama gamed the caucuses and stole the election. Will "Thor" Friedman discuss the issue? Nahhh....
UPDATE: The Women's conference was held at the Sheraton Hotel. The event was co-chaired by a local ABC News anchor. I've put in a call. We may soon have confirmation one way or the other. Keep checking back.
UPDATE 2: Susan at Random Thoughts calls the scandal "Whiteygate." She also notes that the most controversial speaker (at the time, within the black community) was Bill Cosby. Why? This is why:
Bill Cosby pleaded with blacks to stop blaming the "white man" for their problems on Thursday, and he reiterated his harsh critique of the current state of African-American culture.UPDATE 3: National Review relays a rumor (just a rumor) that people close to Rudy Giuliani acquired the tape, presumably at some point before Giuliani dropped out.
"It is almost analgesic to talk about what the white man is doing against us, and it keeps a person frozen in their seat. It keeps you frozen in your hole that you are sitting in to point up and say, 'That's the reason why I am here.' We need to stop this," Cosby said in an address before Jesse Jackson's 33rd Annual Rainbow/PUSH Coalition conference in Chicago.
The Telegraph in the UK seems to take the Whiteygate story seriously. They're owned by Murdoch, who now favors Obama.
UPDATE 4: A commenter at My DD, which has become an Obot site, sneers at the possibility that Michelle could have said anything incendiary. They point to this story, covering the entire Rainbow/PUSH conference. The story does not mention Michelle Obama. However, the piece simply does not deal with the Women's luncheon at all; the writer seems not to have attended that event. At the time, the controversy du jour centered on Bill Cosby's remarks.
Many of you keep repeating the mantra: Show the video! If you think that only a showing of the video will suffice, then you have missed an important point: The conference was attended by others. Do you need a video to prove that Lincoln said "Four score and seven years ago"?
I've left a polite message with a newswoman in attendance, pleading with her to clear the matter up. If she denies that Michelle said such a thing, I will of course publish what she says, even if doing so means a crow-and-hat dinner for yours truly. So far, no response. That fact alone may be telling.
Think about it: If Michelle did not use an incendiary term, then those in attendance (including war hero Shoshana Johnson) would be very quick to clear her name. Right?
But...they have said nothing. The silence is mysterious. Remember the lesson of the Swiftboat debacle: Always respond quickly.
My mind keeps flashing back to the Obama rep with whom I spoke. Before he would comment, he spent a minute talking to his boss, asking for direction on what to say to me. Then I was told that the campaign refuses to address the issue until a video surfaces.
Why?
Why can't Michelle simply state "I have never used the word 'Whitey' to denigrate white people"? After all, this story is being covered around the world. Why the silence?
By the way -- don't presume (as many do) that "lots of people" would have purchased the tape if it was once offered for sale. I can easily see how a video of that sort might have had very few takers -- except, perhaps, for those featured in the video. For most people, even those intensely interested in the African American community, online news coverage would have sufficed. The big news at that confrence was made by Jesse Jackson and Bill Cosby -- who would have been on another tape.
Others have tried to debunk the story by pointing out that Michelle was not a "panelist" but a "featured speaker." Cah-MON. Does that distinction strike you as terribly important?
Tuesday, June 03, 2008
NEVER FORGET. NEVER FORGIVE.
Special note: Larry Johnson now says that the long-rumored Michelle-and-Farrakhan video was made in June of 2004 at a conference, not a Trinity religious service. (You may want to check out this page.) This photo, taken at a luncheon in 2004, shows Michelle Obama with Louis Farrakhan's wife. Could the Obots be more self-destructive? At a time when they should be trying to win over the Hillary voters, they still -- even now -- are continuing to spread lies and spew vitriol.
Hillary did not concede tonight, just as Ted Kennedy did not concede in 1980 until the convention. I was a Kennedy supporter then, and I would have been furious at him if he had faltered, even though he had no real chance. The Carter forces in 1980 did not spray venom at Teddy or his supporters, because they hoped to try to bring guys like me back into the fold.
That was then. This is now -- and "now" is a much less sane place to be. First, the Cheeto:
Here's the bottom line -- if Obama takes Clinton, it would be a sign of weakness as Clinton -- holding few cards -- is apparently set on sabotaging him if she can't get what she want.Moulitsas pulled this nonsense out of his ass, just as he did with that "darkened video" smear. Responses:
HRC is invoking every negative stereotype there is about womenHillary did that?
I want to see some serious...movement on the part of her superdelegates tomorrow. This is disgusting and there should be consequences.
I am ashamed of the First Woman Candidate who HAD a chance at winning - embarrassed and ashamed.This is 2000 all over again. The falsehoods told about Gore took hold then; the falsehoods told about Hillary take hold now.
She has done nothing deserving of shame. Obama is a corrupt pol from the Blagojevich/Daley/Rezko machine who has run the filthiest, sleaziest campaign in the history of the Democratic party -- aided and abetted by Libertarians (Moulitsas, Stassinopoulis, Sullivan, Aravosis) in the new media. They did not just play the race card: They concocted a deck filled with race cards.
What a disgusting speech that was.
she's disgusting
I would like Hillary and Bill to leave the stage permanently. Not on the ticket, not campaigning for Obama, nothing - just go home.
I will not vote for Obama if Clinton is on the ticket. Some whacky crazy Clinton supporter would take that as an invitation to kill him.Riiiiiight. As though the Clinton supporters are the ones with the rep for wackiness.
You should see the Obot commentary -- some of it threatening, all of it insane -- that I receive but do not publish. Taylor Marsh has announced that she will contact the police about the violent comments she routinely receives from Obama's odious fanatics. Do these fools actually think that threats and insults will seduce and sell?
screw 'em this is a battle for the party's soul, and we need to win without them.There's truth here. It is indeed a battle for the party's soul. Basically, the Obama forces have destroyed the Democratic party and replaced it with a Rovian hate machine.
But...can they win without half the party? Try it.
And the hate fest continues over on TPM:
Unfuckingbelieveable. She's such a disgrace.
She's just made women look great with this bullshit. What a bitch.
I dont think Barack should negotiate with terrorists.
I hope she moves forward right into hell...
Jeez, this was astonishing. Her dig at Obama about only caring about Universal Healthcare for the past 16 months pretty much made me drop my jaw.Obamabots call anyone a liar who tells them a truth that does not flatter their hallucinations.
She is freaking odious.
These Clinton clowns fucked the dog tonight.Can you believe the rancor from Democrats directed against the most successful post-WWII president?
Rhandi Rhodes, where are you when we need you?
Hillary just handed McCain the White House.No, you did. You formed a cult of personality around a corrupt manipulator who now has insurmountable negatives. He won only by using his fanatical supporters to game the caucuses. If all states ran primaries, he would have had to concede weeks ago.
No Democrat other than Obama could lose this race. At this stage in 1988, Dukakis was 17 points ahead of Poppy. Obama's ratings may go up somewhat after tonight -- but they'll never reach the Dukakis level, and they'll plummet into Ti-D-Bowl territory soon enough.
Never forget. Never forgive.
For me, this fight was never about Hillary Clinton. Although she would make a good president, I'm not overwhelmingly enamored with her, and I still wish she had not run. I support her only because the followers of Barack Obama repulsed me. I loathe them for turning what was once my party into the mirror image of the Republicans at their most bestial.
What now? Each reader must make a personal game plan. Here's mine:
First, I have to decide between reconciling myself to McCain or making the case for Cynthia McKinney. The latter seems far more likely -- unless McCain changes his stance on the war. If scandal brings down Obama before the convention (very possible), then of course I will support Hillary.
I have to work to keep myself alive. Aside from that...
I am devoting my life to insuring the defeat of Barack Obama. If by some miracle he should win in November, I will devote my life to exposing his corruption.
More than that -- much more: I will do whatever I can to rid the Democratic party of the lying, smearing "progressive" FILTH that has infested it.
Heretofore, my political life has simply been a sideline, an avocation. From this moment forward, I'm playing seriously.
I'm a clever and talented fellow. And I have plans. You might even call them schemes.
Of course, I have no illusions that one little-known, quasi-homeless writer can change history. But let us keep matters in perspective: In 2004, when this site began, Bush was the enemy, and he seemed invulnerable. His supporters were far more numerous and powerful than Obama's forces are today.
One image kept haunting me during the first few months of this site's existence -- the battle for Gondor in Return of the King. When the Mumakils (the oversized elephants) first arrived on the field, all seemed lost. How could one warrior do combat with something so massive?One warrior could not. Many warriors could.
First, one horseman turned toward the creatures -- toward what appeared to be certain doom. Then others joined him.
Eventually, one by one, the beasts fell.
What the Republicans once were, the progressives now are: A stampeding herd of unthinking monsters. We cannot reason with these brutes. We can only bring them down by firing our arrows, volley after volley after volley.
We have fought on these fields before, and we have faced opponents who were far more fearsome.
I'm riding out to meet the foe. Join me.
Let me be the first to paraphrase Mort Sahl's old joke
If John McCain wins, he'll have won because he ran against Barack Obama. If McCain runs unopposed, he'll lose.
Vote suppression
Don't believe the guff from AP about Hillary conceding. The story is a fake, intended to suppress the vote.
And speaking of vote suppression: I encouage you to read this expose on the Texas caucauses.
And speaking of vote suppression: I encouage you to read this expose on the Texas caucauses.
Not only is the caucus system unrepresentative, it’s open to abuse by anyone who wants to game it.Example:
At the Precinct Convention, _____ said the Chair asked for a “show of hands” of how many people wanted to be delegates and then the Chair appointed “7 delegates to Obama and 6 for Clinton.” The Obama captain called in FALSE results. She said the actual results were 74 Clinton and 33 Obama (total votes) which translates 9 for Clinton and 4 for Obama of 13 delegates. Obama supporters did not allow Hillary supporters to review the results of the count or participate in the math.
At 7:05pm at the Precinct Convention, all of the voting for the primary was complete and all of the caucus goers were seated. ________ reported that the Obama chair waited an hour and said “we did not expect this many people so we will have to move” when no move was necessary. The chair said “just sign your name and address and then you can leave.” When asked “what about our presidential preference?” the Obama chair replied “we don’t have time for that…just write your name and address.”This is election fraud, pure and simple. If all states used straight-up primaries, Hillary Clinton would be the nominee.
The origin of the "Whitey" transcript
Hell.
Hell hell hell. The origin of the "transcript" of the alleged "whitey" video has been identified. It started as a joke. At least, I interpret this comment left by a Kos poster on the 18th as a joke. Apparently, some wag slightly re-wrote the attempted humor by one "Fixed Point Theorem," stripped the text of the obvious "joke" signifiers, and sent it on Booman Tribune, Free Republic and other sources, where it was taken seriously.
"Why'd he" do such a thing? You got me.
As we noted earlier, the dating of the alleged Farrakhan/Michelle Obama meeting makes more sense if we presume that Michelle spoke out at an earlier time, before Katrina, when her husband had a much lower profile. That is...if (if if if) she said such a thing at all: We have not yet established that she ever did.
Please note that this post applies to the "transcript," not to the original story about a video. One has to be very careful about making that distinction, since quite a few ninnies are doing the conclusion-hop these days. (The kind reader who made this catch should take a well-deserved bow in the comments section, if he so chooses.)
Hell hell hell. The origin of the "transcript" of the alleged "whitey" video has been identified. It started as a joke. At least, I interpret this comment left by a Kos poster on the 18th as a joke. Apparently, some wag slightly re-wrote the attempted humor by one "Fixed Point Theorem," stripped the text of the obvious "joke" signifiers, and sent it on Booman Tribune, Free Republic and other sources, where it was taken seriously.
"Why'd he" do such a thing? You got me.
As we noted earlier, the dating of the alleged Farrakhan/Michelle Obama meeting makes more sense if we presume that Michelle spoke out at an earlier time, before Katrina, when her husband had a much lower profile. That is...if (if if if) she said such a thing at all: We have not yet established that she ever did.
Please note that this post applies to the "transcript," not to the original story about a video. One has to be very careful about making that distinction, since quite a few ninnies are doing the conclusion-hop these days. (The kind reader who made this catch should take a well-deserved bow in the comments section, if he so chooses.)
Monday, June 02, 2008
Video follow up (UPDATE)
Following up on the previous post: Larry Johnson now claims that the Obama campaign has called the video allegations a "scurrilous lie." Perhaps so, but no official denial has appeared anywhere else on the web.
Johnson also says that the Obama forces are behind the alleged transcript, which (says LJ) is false. He says that this transcript was designed to mislead pro-Obama writers into thinking that "whitey" was a mis-transcription for "why'd he." See here for an example.
Johnson presents no evidence that Obama's team was behind the email. That suggestion makes some sense, but a suggestion is not proof. Also, I believe that right-wing sites, such as Free Republic, were the first to publish the transcript.
If you feel inclined to comment, try to come up with something original or meaty. Or at least funny. I've deleted about two dozen anonymous drive-bys offering mindless variants on the "CIA disinformation plot" meme. I'm not asking people to agree with my stance, since right now, I don't have one. But I am asking for either new facts or a new angle.
(Maybe Michelle was telling her dog to sit...?)
UPDATE: I just talked to a representative of the Obama campaign. He told me that the campaign has not offered any kind of official response and won't until an actual video shows up. He also said that "as far as I know, it's a hoax."
Johnson also says that the Obama forces are behind the alleged transcript, which (says LJ) is false. He says that this transcript was designed to mislead pro-Obama writers into thinking that "whitey" was a mis-transcription for "why'd he." See here for an example.
Johnson presents no evidence that Obama's team was behind the email. That suggestion makes some sense, but a suggestion is not proof. Also, I believe that right-wing sites, such as Free Republic, were the first to publish the transcript.
If you feel inclined to comment, try to come up with something original or meaty. Or at least funny. I've deleted about two dozen anonymous drive-bys offering mindless variants on the "CIA disinformation plot" meme. I'm not asking people to agree with my stance, since right now, I don't have one. But I am asking for either new facts or a new angle.
(Maybe Michelle was telling her dog to sit...?)
UPDATE: I just talked to a representative of the Obama campaign. He told me that the campaign has not offered any kind of official response and won't until an actual video shows up. He also said that "as far as I know, it's a hoax."
Tracking down THAT video: "You know my methods, Watson. Apply them." (UPDATED)
Let us attempt to apply a Holmesian methodology to the case to the mysterious video. This is just a beginning.
A big IF colors everything that follows. We have, as yet, no hard proof that such a video exists. Here is what we do have:
1. Rather detailed second-hand reports come to us from Larry Johnson, who claims to have spoken to five sources. These sources are either Republicans or CIA acquaintances -- a fact which must give us some pause. Johnson has put his reputation on the line. He has much to lose if no video shows up, and -- as far as I can see -- nothing to gain from lying. (Well, I suppose temporarily increased traffic to his site could bring in added revenue -- but the amount of money involved is much less than many seem to think.)
2. Roger Stone, a shark-like GOP operative who apparently has his own sources, also says that such a video exists and that a television network possesses a copy, although he says that he has not seen it. I don't trust him.
3. We have a transcript derived from emails of an unknown provenance. The transcript is somewhat compelling, because it is so disjointed. People speaking "off the cuff" usually use sentence fragments instead of full sentences.
4. Other reporters have developed sources similar to or identical with Johnson's. From National Review:
Remember the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? Remember how all Democratic strategists agreed that the lesson to be learned from that debacle was "We must respond quickly when false stories circulate"?
This odd silence compels me to consider the possibility that such a video exists.
Johnson has said that Rove has displayed the video to various rich GOP donors, as a way of opening the wallets of fat cats who might otherwise consider McCain's cause hopeless. If this is true, copies of the video are not circulating, and would remain under tight control, to be released only at the most auspicious time. (That is, auspicious from the Republican point of view -- i.e., the proverbial October Surprise.)
Unfortunately, many dolts simply do not read, and thus have come under the impression that Johnson has said that copies are in circulation.
In his latest, Johnson gives a visual description:
When did Farrakhan appear on a panel at Trinity? I am trying to find out how many times he has shown up there since the Katrina disaster. We do know that in December of 2007, Trinity United gave Farrakhan what the church calls the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award." (I'm just puckish enough to point out that Farrakhan is a violinist.)
This video was shown on that occasion. I presume that the woman narrating the piece is not Michelle.
What was the exact date of the award? I don't know. Virtually all easily-available news accounts place it "one month" after a Farrakhan speech on November 11, 2007. On that occasion, he said that "Satanic Jews" had taken over Black Entertainment Television.
Our course of action thus seems clear:
-- Discover the exact date of the "Trumpeteer" award ceremony.
-- Determine the Obamas' whereabouts on that date.
-- Find out any other post-Katrina occasions on which Louis Farrakhan may have appeared at Trinity United.
One other possibility occurs to me. If a video exists -- and I suspect that one does -- can we be certain that Michelle is in it? Amateur videos are often unclear, and may be taken at a distance from the subject. Perhaps another woman at the event resembled her.
And before you leap atop your high horse, try to understand that "I suspect" does not mean "I am definitively assuring you." I remain quite open to various possibilities -- including the notion that the Republicans have engineered a fraud in order to keep Democratic infighting going until the convention.
Note that the previous sentence targets "the Republicans," not "Larry Johnson." Re-read point 4 above. The sources may or may not be reliable, but they must exist if they are talking to others as well.
At any rate, I have outlined three things you can do, if you feel eager to do something. Better to pursue a practical course of investigation than to scream "Show us the video, Larry!" mindlessly and repeatedly. He doesn't have it and never claimed to have it.
Update: The award was given in Chicago on November 2, 2007 -- before the "satanic Jews" bit. Barack Obama was in South Carolina on that date. I have no evidence of Michelle's whereabouts, but I will presume that she was with her husband.
It seems highly unlikely that she would be at any function involving Farrakhan after Barack Obama began seriously to consider the presidency.
If the "Katrina" chronological pointer has any validity, then we should look for an occasion after August 2005. At that time, the Combine still hoped to put Blagojevich, not Obama, in the White House -- thus, Michelle would have a little more freedom of association. That plan changed at some point after Blagojevich's legal troubles began in December of 2005. So we should inquire as to whether Farrakhan made an appearance at a Trinity function in the year-or-so following Katrina.
Of course, it is always possible that the email is false. In which case, Michelle may have appeared with Farrakhan much earlier. A State Senator's wife is more likely to speak foolishly than is a U.S. Senator's wife. Then again, that "proud of my country" remark was pretty damned foolish.
And of course, it is always possible that the whole business is false.
A big IF colors everything that follows. We have, as yet, no hard proof that such a video exists. Here is what we do have:
1. Rather detailed second-hand reports come to us from Larry Johnson, who claims to have spoken to five sources. These sources are either Republicans or CIA acquaintances -- a fact which must give us some pause. Johnson has put his reputation on the line. He has much to lose if no video shows up, and -- as far as I can see -- nothing to gain from lying. (Well, I suppose temporarily increased traffic to his site could bring in added revenue -- but the amount of money involved is much less than many seem to think.)
2. Roger Stone, a shark-like GOP operative who apparently has his own sources, also says that such a video exists and that a television network possesses a copy, although he says that he has not seen it. I don't trust him.
3. We have a transcript derived from emails of an unknown provenance. The transcript is somewhat compelling, because it is so disjointed. People speaking "off the cuff" usually use sentence fragments instead of full sentences.
4. Other reporters have developed sources similar to or identical with Johnson's. From National Review:
I'm hearing from other reporters that their (secondhand, of course) sources are calling back and adding that they saw Louis Farrakhan on the tape, a detail that they didn't mention before Johnson's update of 9 this morning. Does the presence of Farrakhan seem like a detail that's easy to forget?5. We have no response as yet from Michelle Obama.
Remember the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth? Remember how all Democratic strategists agreed that the lesson to be learned from that debacle was "We must respond quickly when false stories circulate"?
This odd silence compels me to consider the possibility that such a video exists.
Johnson has said that Rove has displayed the video to various rich GOP donors, as a way of opening the wallets of fat cats who might otherwise consider McCain's cause hopeless. If this is true, copies of the video are not circulating, and would remain under tight control, to be released only at the most auspicious time. (That is, auspicious from the Republican point of view -- i.e., the proverbial October Surprise.)
Unfortunately, many dolts simply do not read, and thus have come under the impression that Johnson has said that copies are in circulation.
In his latest, Johnson gives a visual description:
It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks.The rumored transcript, which Johnson has not endorsed, makes reference to Katrina. So this gives us a time frame.
When did Farrakhan appear on a panel at Trinity? I am trying to find out how many times he has shown up there since the Katrina disaster. We do know that in December of 2007, Trinity United gave Farrakhan what the church calls the "Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Trumpeteer award." (I'm just puckish enough to point out that Farrakhan is a violinist.)
This video was shown on that occasion. I presume that the woman narrating the piece is not Michelle.
What was the exact date of the award? I don't know. Virtually all easily-available news accounts place it "one month" after a Farrakhan speech on November 11, 2007. On that occasion, he said that "Satanic Jews" had taken over Black Entertainment Television.
Our course of action thus seems clear:
-- Discover the exact date of the "Trumpeteer" award ceremony.
-- Determine the Obamas' whereabouts on that date.
-- Find out any other post-Katrina occasions on which Louis Farrakhan may have appeared at Trinity United.
One other possibility occurs to me. If a video exists -- and I suspect that one does -- can we be certain that Michelle is in it? Amateur videos are often unclear, and may be taken at a distance from the subject. Perhaps another woman at the event resembled her.
And before you leap atop your high horse, try to understand that "I suspect" does not mean "I am definitively assuring you." I remain quite open to various possibilities -- including the notion that the Republicans have engineered a fraud in order to keep Democratic infighting going until the convention.
Note that the previous sentence targets "the Republicans," not "Larry Johnson." Re-read point 4 above. The sources may or may not be reliable, but they must exist if they are talking to others as well.
At any rate, I have outlined three things you can do, if you feel eager to do something. Better to pursue a practical course of investigation than to scream "Show us the video, Larry!" mindlessly and repeatedly. He doesn't have it and never claimed to have it.
Update: The award was given in Chicago on November 2, 2007 -- before the "satanic Jews" bit. Barack Obama was in South Carolina on that date. I have no evidence of Michelle's whereabouts, but I will presume that she was with her husband.
It seems highly unlikely that she would be at any function involving Farrakhan after Barack Obama began seriously to consider the presidency.
If the "Katrina" chronological pointer has any validity, then we should look for an occasion after August 2005. At that time, the Combine still hoped to put Blagojevich, not Obama, in the White House -- thus, Michelle would have a little more freedom of association. That plan changed at some point after Blagojevich's legal troubles began in December of 2005. So we should inquire as to whether Farrakhan made an appearance at a Trinity function in the year-or-so following Katrina.
Of course, it is always possible that the email is false. In which case, Michelle may have appeared with Farrakhan much earlier. A State Senator's wife is more likely to speak foolishly than is a U.S. Senator's wife. Then again, that "proud of my country" remark was pretty damned foolish.
And of course, it is always possible that the whole business is false.
Here's what's going on... (Updated)
Everyone's trying to log onto No Quarter right now, in order to learn about the alleged "Whitey" video.
I finally got onto the site. Larry still has not proven the existence of the thing. His list of sources is up to five. No word on the TV network rumor. But we do have a description of the visual element:
(Oh, don't accuse me of stereotyping. I happen to like sweet potato pie.)
Update: This odd site claims to have a transcript, based on an email of uncertain origin. Not exactly a convincing provenance, is it? For what (little) it may be worth, here 'tis:
Regarding party unity, Anglachel found just the right words:
Powerline has a hilarious compendium of zealous reactions to Obama's long-ago Great Speech on Race, the one he delivered when the first Wright controversy flared up. At the time, lots of folks hated me because -- contrary to the Party Line -- I said that Obama (or "Slowbama") spoke poorly and unpersuasively. The Party Liners now seem awfully stupid.
Perhaps the silliest Party Liner was Andrew Sullivan. His gushing man-crush reaction was purpler than Pilate's toga:
I finally got onto the site. Larry still has not proven the existence of the thing. His list of sources is up to five. No word on the TV network rumor. But we do have a description of the visual element:
It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame.Any photos of Michelle and Farrakhan together will suffice to end Democratic chances in November, even if the two were just trading recipes for sweet potato pie.
(Oh, don't accuse me of stereotyping. I happen to like sweet potato pie.)
Update: This odd site claims to have a transcript, based on an email of uncertain origin. Not exactly a convincing provenance, is it? For what (little) it may be worth, here 'tis:
“Once again, the white man keeps us down, what’s up with Whitey, Why’d he attack Iraq, Why’d he let Katrina happen, Why’d he leave millions of children behind. This is the legacy the white man gives us”I have a container of Morton's on the desk, which I keep for just such occasions.
Regarding party unity, Anglachel found just the right words:
All around Left Blogistan, Obamacans are reveling in the seeming victory of the RBC ruling and are disdainfully telling Hillary and her supporters that they need to fall in line, get with the program, and otherwise show that we're worthy of being part of Whole Foods Nation. Ezra Klein pompously warns Hillary: "[There is an] authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters. And that's not a problem the Rules Committee can resolve. This one is up to Clinton herself."
Erm, no.
The deep problem of Obama's campaign is that he and his supporters do not want to face the political reality of their own conflicting desires. They both want to sweep to victory in November and they want to purge the party of anything connected to the Clintons, which includes all of the voting contituencies represented by that amazing and talented duo. The failure of the Unity Pony stems directly from that fantasy of majority status without majority support and the political work and compromises that go with cultivating that support. Thus, their model for unity is unanimity through elimination, purging the ranks of the unclean and unbelievers.Carrying the theme forward, Big Tent Democrat says:
They will not acknowledge that Hillary is a legitimate political actor and reduce her to an inhuman monster and enemy. They will not acknowledge that her supporters have sound, rational reasons for our support, and reduce us to mindless fools and spoils of war. They shift blame for their own choices and actions onto us and expect that we will cater to their whims.
I am amazed at the view expressed by Obama supporters that unifying the Democratic Party is a problem for Hillary Clinton. Like me, they all expect Barack Obama to be the nominee, but they insist that the problem of unifying the Democratic Party belongs to Hillary Clinton. This is an incredibly obtuse view. Obama is going to be the candidate who will win or lose in November. It will be HIS job to unify the Party. Ezra Klein does not see it that way:It's too late. Too late. The Obots know only how to attack and to insult, and they seem genuinely stunned when all of this energetic attacking and insulting steels our determination to go our own way. We really don't care about sitting at the Cool Kids' Table. Spit on our faces does not provoke a deep longing to unite. Obots seem to think that brandishing a knife while screeching for blood is a form of seduction. In my experience, that approach never works, outside of one or two goth clubs in Hollywood.[There is an] authentic, deep anger among Clinton supporters. And that's not a problem the Rules Committee can resolve. This one is up to Clinton herself.Um no. That is up to the likely nominee, Barack Obama.
Powerline has a hilarious compendium of zealous reactions to Obama's long-ago Great Speech on Race, the one he delivered when the first Wright controversy flared up. At the time, lots of folks hated me because -- contrary to the Party Line -- I said that Obama (or "Slowbama") spoke poorly and unpersuasively. The Party Liners now seem awfully stupid.
Perhaps the silliest Party Liner was Andrew Sullivan. His gushing man-crush reaction was purpler than Pilate's toga:
This is what my faith is about. It is what the Gospels are about. This is a candidate who does not merely speak as a Christian. He acts like a Christian.(Emphasis added.) If you are the sort of grammarian who still insists on recognizing the distinction between "as" and "like," then you'll giggle at Sullivan's implication. You can't act like a Christian if you are one. Thus: Christianity is the best image.
Sunday, June 01, 2008
The "Whitey" tape (UPDATE)
(Heh heh. Larry Johnson can't get this video to embed, but I can. Neener!)
Supposedly, a TV network has the tape. Supposedly. Caution remains our best stance. I still suspect that the tape, if it comes to light, may prove to be fake. Even so, and even without the video evidence, the story has reached a level where Michelle must respond -- in fact, I would expect a response before 24 hours have passed. And if she says anything other than "It's a lie" -- game over, man. Game over.
Update: Rumor now holds that ABC has the tape.
Hey, remember when Jeremiah Wright said of Hillary Clinton "She ain't never been called 'nigger'"? I wonder. How many black people can honestly say that they've been called that word? (I don't mean by other blacks in a jesting fashion.)
Art is a racket
Yeah, I know that yesterday was a big news day. Monday will be as well. But this blog occasionally looks at non-political subjects on the weekends, and I've been itching to write about art.
A fellow by the name of David Barsalou has created a site called Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein. Barsalou actually likes Lichtenstein, who made millions painting enlarged versions of comic book panels. Barsalou made it his business to track down the original comic books for comparison.
Personally, I can't stand Lichtenstein, whom I consider the biggest fraud in the history of art, with the possible exception of Walter Keane. Whenever I see a Lichtenstein hanging in a museum, the spirit of Lazlo Toth starts whispering in my ear, telling me to grab a hammer and do my part to improve the culture.
Lichtenstein devoted himself to capturing everything that was shoddy and gaudy about the comics of the 1950s and 1960s. He focused on the crappy reproduction and the flat, limited color.
(Comic book and comic strip coloring is infinitely better in the computer age. Old-timers like yours truly recall what it was like to cut rubylith. If you don't know what that phrase means, I can't explain it to you here -- but trust me, it was a rotten system.)
What Lichtenstein could not capture was the solid draftsmanship on display in the original comic book panels. Roy gave those old pros a black eye by misrepresenting the nature of their work to the "highbrow" art world. Lichtenstein simply could not draw -- yet he made millions. Meanwhile the victims of his robbery -- who could draw -- received a tiny page rate. Some comic book artists of that generation spent years in poverty.
Examples follow. Click on each image for a larger version. To see still larger versions, visit the above-linked website.
I don't know who did the original nurse on the left. But it's a perfectly competent drawing. The artist has subtly indicated the upward tilt of the head and the direction of the light. The hair is handled rather well -- not great, but good enough, with shading in the correct places.
Lichtenstein transforms the hair into a bizarre rubbery substance. The mouth no longer lines up with the nose, and the chin slides even further leftward. Look at the way the clothing drapes. Does that make sense to you?
The original piece (artist unknown to me) is a very nice little drawing. I like the delicate feathering around the eyes. Following the style of the day, the hatch marks flow with the surface, creating a nice illusion of depth. (Check out the black fingernails -- I didn't know they had goth girls in the '50s!)
The Lichtenstein version is a mess. That isn't hair; that's rust-colored fettucini. The fingernails come to razor-sharp points. The index and ring fingers are seen from the front, while the ring and pinky fingers are seen from the sides. Hands aren't built that way. (Look at your own.) There's no feathering around the eyes. Lichtenstein offers very little variation in line weight, and thus creates no illusion of depth.
If I recall correctly, a fanzine in the 1970s had already found this one, and identified the artist of the original as Don Heck, co-creator of Iron Man. Heck is rarely considered a fan favorite. But he was a true pro, especially when compared to our boy Roy.
In Heck's original, the wings of the aircraft are accurate and convincing -- whereas Lichtenstein's jet is hideously mis-drawn. Look at the numeral 3 on the Lichtenstein: Does it look like it is resting on a curved surface? The shadows make sense in the original but not in the enlarged version.
And how did the pilot turn into Andre the Giant?
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
In the original, the villain's head is seen from slightly above and slightly behind. Lichtenstein changes this to a straight-on profile. Why? Because straight-on profiles are easier to draw. And what the hell happened to the index finger on the right hand?
In both versions, the big electrical switch is rendered in poor perspective; Lichtenstein makes a bad situation worse. Again, notice how all the lines are given equal weight in the revised version, destroying much of the charm of the original.
Lichtenstein simply cannot understand that eyeballs are round objects set within the socket. All competent comic book artists know how to indicate the round "shape beneath the skin" of the eyelid with relatively few strokes of ink. You never see that skill in a Lichtenstein.
The hair flows very nicely in the original, with highlights and recessed areas deftly indicated. Now look at what Lichtenstein does to this poor lady's hairdo -- especially at the bottom! He adds a curved line beside her nose to establish her cheek. But the cheek would form that shape only if she were smiling.
Now this one really pisses me off. Anyone of my generation who grew up reading comics will recognize the work of the great Joe Kubert, known for his fluid and organic linework. The cross-hatching on the soldier's sunken cheeks conveys form, energy and drama.
Look at the hand: With a few deft strokes, Kubert indicates not just the contour but the underlying bone structure. Kubert also understands that the helmet, the upper lip and the nose must cast shadows.
Meanwhile, Lichtenstein -- well, hell, just look at that ghastly thing. What incompetence!
I believe that the original comes from one of Harvey Kurtzman's war comics. Like wartime cartoonist Bill Mauldin, Kurtzmann thought in terms of light and shadow, not contour. Those quickly-applied huge black shadow areas are true art. Those brush-strokes have life -- yet they are also under perfect control.
The Lichtenstein is an atrocity. Compare the rifles! Compare the mouths! Compare the quality of the linework! And what the hell is that shadow under the left eye in Roy's version?
I don't recognize the original artist here, but the style looks very familiar. I want to say Gray Morrow, but I don't think that's it. Whoever did it, it's a well-executed drawing; I especially like the way the lips are handled.
Roy batters the poor girl's face out of shape. The eyelid no longer has any relationship with the eyeball. The lips experience left-ward drift. The hair has no sense of volume or flow. And what's with the guy's jacket? Did you ever see suit material drape in that fashion?
I could go on, but you get the point.
What I don't understand is why Lichtenstein did not simply enlarge the originals, using the "square up" device known to artists since the Renaissance. Even if he insisted on re-drawing his swipes by hand -- why did he make so many drawing errors? The originals were right there in front of his eyes!
The pros who turned out the original pages would have been overjoyed to received one-tenth of the money Lichtenstein received when he sold his Pop Art mess-terpieces to collectors who possessed more funds than taste. Even today, a Lichtenstein can fetch millions. Art historians will tout his work using that meaningless catch-all term "irony," as though irony excuses an utter lack of craftsmanship. (Say what you will about Warhol: The guy was, at the very least, a perfectly satisfactory silk screener.)
And if "irony" doesn't suffice to justify this garbage, historians and critics will focus on Lichtenstein's gaudy subject matter. They do so because most art historians are really English majors who wandered into the wrong classroom. They reduce everything to literature.
I've no sympathy with phony critics and poseur historians. My sympathy goes to bread-and-butter illustrators who know how to suggest three dimensions in a two-dimensional medium. In comics, the demands of both printers and deadlines disallowed fussy cross-hatching, yet the artists still found ways to create form, volume, light and shadow, using the fewest possible strokes.
This is not a lost art, even in an age when printing and production techniques are much improved. Modern comic book artists have masses of talent; they know how to perform the old magic, and they can also do lots of new magic. But for some reason -- starting around sixty years ago, and continuing up to the present day -- the kind of people who spend time in museums, galleries, and auction houses stopped caring about the fundamentals of good draftsmanship.
It's time they got the news: Subject matter doesn't matter. The ability to draw matters.
I wonder -- whatever happened to Don Heck?
A fellow by the name of David Barsalou has created a site called Deconstructing Roy Lichtenstein. Barsalou actually likes Lichtenstein, who made millions painting enlarged versions of comic book panels. Barsalou made it his business to track down the original comic books for comparison.
Personally, I can't stand Lichtenstein, whom I consider the biggest fraud in the history of art, with the possible exception of Walter Keane. Whenever I see a Lichtenstein hanging in a museum, the spirit of Lazlo Toth starts whispering in my ear, telling me to grab a hammer and do my part to improve the culture.
Lichtenstein devoted himself to capturing everything that was shoddy and gaudy about the comics of the 1950s and 1960s. He focused on the crappy reproduction and the flat, limited color.
(Comic book and comic strip coloring is infinitely better in the computer age. Old-timers like yours truly recall what it was like to cut rubylith. If you don't know what that phrase means, I can't explain it to you here -- but trust me, it was a rotten system.)
What Lichtenstein could not capture was the solid draftsmanship on display in the original comic book panels. Roy gave those old pros a black eye by misrepresenting the nature of their work to the "highbrow" art world. Lichtenstein simply could not draw -- yet he made millions. Meanwhile the victims of his robbery -- who could draw -- received a tiny page rate. Some comic book artists of that generation spent years in poverty.
Examples follow. Click on each image for a larger version. To see still larger versions, visit the above-linked website.
I don't know who did the original nurse on the left. But it's a perfectly competent drawing. The artist has subtly indicated the upward tilt of the head and the direction of the light. The hair is handled rather well -- not great, but good enough, with shading in the correct places.Lichtenstein transforms the hair into a bizarre rubbery substance. The mouth no longer lines up with the nose, and the chin slides even further leftward. Look at the way the clothing drapes. Does that make sense to you?
The original piece (artist unknown to me) is a very nice little drawing. I like the delicate feathering around the eyes. Following the style of the day, the hatch marks flow with the surface, creating a nice illusion of depth. (Check out the black fingernails -- I didn't know they had goth girls in the '50s!)The Lichtenstein version is a mess. That isn't hair; that's rust-colored fettucini. The fingernails come to razor-sharp points. The index and ring fingers are seen from the front, while the ring and pinky fingers are seen from the sides. Hands aren't built that way. (Look at your own.) There's no feathering around the eyes. Lichtenstein offers very little variation in line weight, and thus creates no illusion of depth.
If I recall correctly, a fanzine in the 1970s had already found this one, and identified the artist of the original as Don Heck, co-creator of Iron Man. Heck is rarely considered a fan favorite. But he was a true pro, especially when compared to our boy Roy.In Heck's original, the wings of the aircraft are accurate and convincing -- whereas Lichtenstein's jet is hideously mis-drawn. Look at the numeral 3 on the Lichtenstein: Does it look like it is resting on a curved surface? The shadows make sense in the original but not in the enlarged version.
And how did the pilot turn into Andre the Giant?
(To read the rest, click "Permalink" below)
In the original, the villain's head is seen from slightly above and slightly behind. Lichtenstein changes this to a straight-on profile. Why? Because straight-on profiles are easier to draw. And what the hell happened to the index finger on the right hand?In both versions, the big electrical switch is rendered in poor perspective; Lichtenstein makes a bad situation worse. Again, notice how all the lines are given equal weight in the revised version, destroying much of the charm of the original.
Lichtenstein simply cannot understand that eyeballs are round objects set within the socket. All competent comic book artists know how to indicate the round "shape beneath the skin" of the eyelid with relatively few strokes of ink. You never see that skill in a Lichtenstein.The hair flows very nicely in the original, with highlights and recessed areas deftly indicated. Now look at what Lichtenstein does to this poor lady's hairdo -- especially at the bottom! He adds a curved line beside her nose to establish her cheek. But the cheek would form that shape only if she were smiling.
Now this one really pisses me off. Anyone of my generation who grew up reading comics will recognize the work of the great Joe Kubert, known for his fluid and organic linework. The cross-hatching on the soldier's sunken cheeks conveys form, energy and drama.Look at the hand: With a few deft strokes, Kubert indicates not just the contour but the underlying bone structure. Kubert also understands that the helmet, the upper lip and the nose must cast shadows.
Meanwhile, Lichtenstein -- well, hell, just look at that ghastly thing. What incompetence!
I believe that the original comes from one of Harvey Kurtzman's war comics. Like wartime cartoonist Bill Mauldin, Kurtzmann thought in terms of light and shadow, not contour. Those quickly-applied huge black shadow areas are true art. Those brush-strokes have life -- yet they are also under perfect control.The Lichtenstein is an atrocity. Compare the rifles! Compare the mouths! Compare the quality of the linework! And what the hell is that shadow under the left eye in Roy's version?
I don't recognize the original artist here, but the style looks very familiar. I want to say Gray Morrow, but I don't think that's it. Whoever did it, it's a well-executed drawing; I especially like the way the lips are handled.Roy batters the poor girl's face out of shape. The eyelid no longer has any relationship with the eyeball. The lips experience left-ward drift. The hair has no sense of volume or flow. And what's with the guy's jacket? Did you ever see suit material drape in that fashion?
I could go on, but you get the point.
What I don't understand is why Lichtenstein did not simply enlarge the originals, using the "square up" device known to artists since the Renaissance. Even if he insisted on re-drawing his swipes by hand -- why did he make so many drawing errors? The originals were right there in front of his eyes!
The pros who turned out the original pages would have been overjoyed to received one-tenth of the money Lichtenstein received when he sold his Pop Art mess-terpieces to collectors who possessed more funds than taste. Even today, a Lichtenstein can fetch millions. Art historians will tout his work using that meaningless catch-all term "irony," as though irony excuses an utter lack of craftsmanship. (Say what you will about Warhol: The guy was, at the very least, a perfectly satisfactory silk screener.)
And if "irony" doesn't suffice to justify this garbage, historians and critics will focus on Lichtenstein's gaudy subject matter. They do so because most art historians are really English majors who wandered into the wrong classroom. They reduce everything to literature.
I've no sympathy with phony critics and poseur historians. My sympathy goes to bread-and-butter illustrators who know how to suggest three dimensions in a two-dimensional medium. In comics, the demands of both printers and deadlines disallowed fussy cross-hatching, yet the artists still found ways to create form, volume, light and shadow, using the fewest possible strokes.
This is not a lost art, even in an age when printing and production techniques are much improved. Modern comic book artists have masses of talent; they know how to perform the old magic, and they can also do lots of new magic. But for some reason -- starting around sixty years ago, and continuing up to the present day -- the kind of people who spend time in museums, galleries, and auction houses stopped caring about the fundamentals of good draftsmanship.
It's time they got the news: Subject matter doesn't matter. The ability to draw matters.
I wonder -- whatever happened to Don Heck?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)